Published 4:00 am, Friday, July 19, 1996

The suit, to be filed by three transit advocacy organizations unhappy with the chosen route, charges that the $1.2 billion project violates environmental laws. It asks the San Francisco Superior Court to invalidate the project's environmental impact report and require BART to prepare a new one.

The groups have argued that BART's plan would cause environmental damage and is simply too expensive and impractical.

"There are other ways we believe that the project could be done. (The project as planned) is much too costly and damaging to the environment," said Michael Cline, administrative director of the Train Riders Association of California, one of the groups that filed the suit.

Bill Yeates, a Sacramento environmental attorney who helped prepare the lawsuit, said the environmental report approved by the BART board in June was more a "promotional" document than an objective analysis of how the project will affect the Bay Area.

The Train Riders Association of California, Peninsula Rail 2000 and the Coalition for a One Stop Terminal want a single airport station that would serve BART, CalTrain and the airport's planned light rail system. BART wants to build a station at the airport that would not connect with CalTrain or the light- rail system.

The transit groups also argue that extending the line to Millbrae is too costly and is unnecessary, and could take away riders and funding from CalTrain.

BART officials countered that the extension is environmentally sound and would benefit Bay Area commuters. The project enjoys the support of the region's congressional delegation, local officials and many Peninsula residents.

"I'm completely confident that we have not only done a thorough job in the environmental documentation, but that BART has a strong track record in doing environmental work," he said.

To replace wildlife habitat lost to the project, BART plans to buy 244 acres of land and create two wetland ponds near the airport for the San Francisco Garter Snake and the red-legged frog. The project will destroy less than an acre of wildlife habitat.

However, BART officials and supporters were concerned that the lawsuit could serve as an obstacle to the project, especially as the agency struggles to secure much- needed federal funding.

This week, the Senate appropriations subcommittee on transportation -- which slashed the project's federal financing to a quarter of what BART originally requested -- said it won't approve full funding if BART is sued over the extension.

Both houses of Congress will finalize BART's financing later this year. Representative Bill Baker, R- Danville, a staunch project supporter, said he intends to have the lawsuit provision changed or removed.

"This is just another hurdle for us," he said from Washington, D.C. "I can't imagine why anyone would want to delay and increase the cost of the project."